Using AI in your practice: What do clients value most?

In brief:
• Clients don’t just react to AI itself; they react to how you use it
• Transparency, human oversight, and client benefit matter most
• AI works best when it supports, not replaces, the relationship

Generative AI is no longer abstract for financial advisers, as it’s increasingly part of client conversations. Clients may be wondering: Are you using AI? How? And what does that mean for me? Clients are not just aware of the technologies; they have their own opinions and expectations about their use.

The challenge is no longer whether to adopt AI, but how to use it in a way that strengthens, rather than undermines, the client relationship.

In our research, we surveyed more than 1,200 investors across major markets to understand how investors react to different uses of generative AI in financial advice and planning. A universal theme arose: investors are sensitive to when, how, and why advisers use generative AI.

No clear line between “helpful” and “risky”
Our findings suggest an adviser’s use of AI can harm their relationship with clients, but there is no single point where AI use becomes a relationship risk. Instead, investors’ responses depend on how the technology is used. Therefore, advisers should examine whether their use of AI may be a risk to their relationships and be mindful about how much context matters here.

A useful way to assess this is with three questions:

• What are you using AI for?
• How are you using it?
• Why are you using it?

The “what” reflects the relationship. Investors may accept using AI to summarise research or create educational content, but they tend to balk at AI being used for more relationship-centered tasks like personalised communication or investment recommendations.

The “how” reflects safeguards. Investors consistently highlight the importance of data protection, transparency, and human oversight.

The “why” reflects motivation. Investors are more receptive when AI improves outcomes, such as reducing errors or enhancing service, than when it appears to reduce effort alone.

In short, the risk does not come from AI itself, but from how well its use aligns with client preferences. Risks tend to emerge when AI use compromises accuracy, neglects the personal relationship, or prioritises efficiency over client outcomes.

Transparency helps, but only if it’s done well
Most investors want to know when AI is used, but disclosure comes with challenges.

Advisers may worry about inciting anxiety when they bring clients’ attention to their use of generative AI. However, we believe advisers face a greater risk in hiding AI use and damaging client trust when it does come to light.

Instead of bypassing disclosure, advisers can provide client-friendly disclosures by being:

• Clear
• Concise
• Relevant

For example, disclosure for educational materials may simply be a line at the bottom that says, “We used generative AI to create the outline for this document and then wrote the content ourselves.” This kind of honest and plain language helps build that transparency.

This type of framing informs clients without overcomplicating the message. Further, it signals AI is a support tool rather than a replacement for the adviser, reinforcing the adviser’s central role and expertise in shaping the final output.

Efficiency tends to be most persuasive when clients experience the benefit directly
A key finding from our research is that efficiency alone does not automatically translate into perceived value.

Investors are often willing to pay less for services when AI was involved. This reflects a common tendency: people associate value with effort and expertise. When a task appears easier, it can seem less valuable.

Even so, efficiency matters and can be a convincing reason for incorporating AI into financial planning. However, clients must experience the benefit themselves. Tangible improvements for clients may include faster follow-ups, more personalised communication, fewer errors, and more focused meetings. The key is making that benefit explicit in context. Otherwise, clients may perceive AI use as their adviser cutting corners.

For example, if you use AI for notetaking in meetings, you may tell your client up front, “I’m using AI to capture notes of our conversation faithfully, so I can stay fully focused on you during our conversation.”

Presented this way, the tool enhances presence of the adviser and accuracy for the client, rather than simply reducing effort for the adviser.

Human oversight means accountability
Investors consistently express a desire for human oversight. This is because they want to be confident that:

• A human is exercising judgment
• A human is responsible for the outcome

In practice, this can be communicated simply with clients like, “AI may support tasks like research or synthesis, but I make all final decisions and recommendations.” This may also be a moment for an adviser to remind the client that they put the client's best interests at heart of what they do and formally act as a fiduciary.

When an adviser explains how this oversight works, it can even help them bolster their credibility with clients. Advisers demonstrate that human judgement is central and their expertise is key when they can clearly articulate what they considered, what alternatives they evaluated, and why a recommendation was made.

A measured approach to adoption
As AI becomes more visible in financial planning, client preferences will continue to evolve, though it is unclear how quickly.

For now, a measured approach is most prudent. Advisers can begin with AI uses where:

• AI performs well
• Advisers benefits from support
• Clients are likely to be comfortable

Advisers may find more functional applications, such as summarising information or supporting research, are natural starting points. Meanwhile, advisers should take greater care for AI uses that involve personalisation, emotional context, or sensitive data.

The bottom line
Generative AI has the potential to help advisers manage growing demands, but its impact on the adviser-client relationship depends on how it is used.

Investors continue to value the human elements of advice, specifically understanding, judgment, and guidance through uncertainty. Used thoughtfully, AI can support these elements for advisers by freeing up time and improving consistency. Used poorly, it risks undermining them, and the trust that advisors need in order to be effective with their clients.